- (1.) Tilak Raj made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for eviction of his tenant Gokal Chand on the allegations that the respondent is a tenant in a shop bearing Khanna Shumari No. 272/16-4 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12/- for the last 14 years under the applicant. He further averred that the respondent was liable to ejectment from the demised property on the following grounds :- " .......... ........... ........" that the respondent has converted the use of the property. He is using the same for the purpose different than the one for which it was taken on rent, that the respondent had taken the property for his business but he was using the same for storing fuel wood and coal etc." He had taken other grounds for his eviction also, but we are not concerned with the same because they have not been accepted by the Courts below. The tenant admitted the first part of the ejectment application, i.e. that the tenant had taken on rent a shop. However, he denied the allegations that he had changed the user of the shop. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant had taken the shop on rent for his business but he had not used the shop for the purposes of business. He had rather started storing fuel wood and coal. The shop was being used only for the purpose of storage because the tenant was not in the trade of selling fuel wood and coal. He accepted the application for ejectment and ordered the eviction of the tenant. Dissatisfied with this orders, Gokal Chand filed an appeal. The Appellant Authority also came to the conclusion that the shop was used for storing fuel wood and coal though it had been let out for the purposes of business. By storing fuel wood etc. in the shop, the tenant could not be said to be carrying on the business for which the shop had been let out. He dismissed the appeal of the tenant. Aggrieved by these orders, Gokal Chand has filed the present revision petition.
(2.) Mr. G.R. Majithia, The learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that there was no rent note from which it could be determined as to what was the purpose for which the shop has been let out on rent. In the ejectment application also, it was not specified as to for what business the shop has been rented out. In the absence of specific pleadings, no amount of evidence can be looked into to determine as to for what purpose the shop had been rented out. One thing is clear that the premises in dispute are a shop. They were let out for carrying out a business. The Rent Controller and the Appellant Authority on the basis of the evidence produced have come to a positive finding of fact that no business is being carried out in the demised premise Coal and fuel wood etc. are being stored therein. So, the premises are not being used as a shop. No business is infact carried on there. The shop is rather being used as a godown. A shop let out for business can be used only for carrying on some business. It cannot be used as a godown for storing fuel wood etc. The fact that there is no rent note is of no consequence. The controversy in the case is fully covered by a recent decision of a Full Bench in Des Raj v. Sham Lal, 1980 AIR(P&H) 229 It has been held therein :- "Where a premises is let out to a tenant as a 'shop' and it is silent as regards the purpose for which it is let and it is used by the tenant exclusively as a godown the tenant can be said to have changed the user and is liable to be evicted in terms of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act." There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Majithia that there being no specific plea regarding the purpose for which the shop had been let out, no evidence could be led to prove the purpose. As has been noticed in the opening part of the judgment, it has been clearly stated in the ejectment application that a shop had been let out for business purposes. In order to substantiate these allegations, evidence has been led by the landlord and the same has been believed by the Rent Controller and Appellant Authority. Mr. Majithia also relied upon the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal and others, 1978 AIR(SC) 1601. These observations are not at all helpful to the learned counsel. They had been considered in Des Raj's case . Similarly the decision in Hans Raj v. Shrimati Ram Piari,1973 RCR(Civ) 256. and Sham Singh v. Jaswant Singh and others, 1971 73 PunLR 335 are not relevant for the decision of this case. These cases were decided on their own peculiar facts. They do not lay down any proposition of law. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. The tenant is allowed three month's time to vacate the premises provided he pays the arrears of rent and the rent for these three months. Petition dismissed.;